|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2005 : 11:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markie
My belief is that, although the Spirit does has to do with the initiation of life, there is another dynamic factor which is involved without which life does not arise.quote:
Like what?
Believe me, you won't want to know :) Let's just say that a particular type of sentient being is authorized to impart to the specially constructed cell the 'breath of life'. I know, it's sounding more and more like fairy poop all the time....
quote:
Interesting. What sustains this Spirit which sustains life and consciousness? What sustains this primal force?
Both are derived from Ultimate Deity, who would be self existing by definition.
quote:
Yet again, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. As long as life and consciousness remain unexplained by the mechanisms we know, 'higher law' cannot be ruled out.quote:
Neither can we rule it in based solely upon our ignorance of a process.
True. quote:
Ignorance isn't evidence for anything. Otherwise, we could rule in the dark-matter-fairy-poop theory, too.
You are *assuming* that it is mere ignorance of how the conventionally understood laws of physics interact which prevents us from understanding the life phenomenon. Astronomers see that galaxies behave strangely in their rotation and so they invoke something new - beyond the conventionally understood - called dark matter - to 'explain' it. That is *almost* akin to introducing the 'higher law' to explain life.
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 12:50:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Believe me, you won't want to know :)
I don't believe you.
quote:
Astronomers see that galaxies behave strangely in their rotation and so they invoke something new - beyond the conventionally understood - called dark matter - to 'explain' it. That is *almost* akin to introducing the 'higher law' to explain life.
So... let me get this straight. You think that because astronomers look at the universe and discover that it would require more mass than we can currently observe to account for some of the observations.... that they are invoking a "higher law"?
We are right back to the god-of-the-gaps. If you don't understand it, just label it as "god-did-it".
Unacceptable.
quote:
You are *assuming* that it is mere ignorance of how the conventionally understood laws of physics interact which prevents us from understanding the life phenomenon.
Ignorance prevents nothing, unless you deliberately remain ignorant. I find it amusing that you are saying that we "assume" it is a lack of knowledge that prevents us from understanding. Lack of knowledge is a thing to be overcome, not some active force (unless it is ignorance of the willfull kind) blocking us.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2005 : 13:00:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
You are *assuming* that it is mere ignorance of how the conventionally understood laws of physics interact which prevents us from understanding the life phenomenon.
Not at all, since I'm well aware that the research is already far enough along for a rudimentary "understanding" of the phenomena.quote:
Astronomers see that galaxies behave strangely in their rotation and so they invoke something new - beyond the conventionally understood - called dark matter - to 'explain' it. That is *almost* akin to introducing the 'higher law' to explain life.
Not nearly akin. Scientists introduce a new hypothesis - "dark matter" - and then test that hypothesis to see if it is correct. These new hypotheses make predictions, after all, about what we should observe if we look in particular places, or at particular phenomena. We check to see if those predictions are correct, and thus either reinforce or trash the hypotheses, as required.
Introducing an undefined "higher law" as an explanation for life predicts nothing at all, and so presents us with no way to test to see if this higher law speculation is correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 10:58:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: So... let me get this straight. You think that because astronomers look at the universe and discover that it would require more mass than we can currently observe to account for some of the observations.... that they are invoking a "higher law"?
Hardly a higher law, just "another" one. We can't explain certain aspects of the universe so we invoke principles that we hope shall.
By 'higher law' I simply mean a law which imo we will find impossible to penetrate, let alone define adequately. But if you have the confidence that we shall, say, explain how consciousness arises from natural mechanism I certainly don't hold that against you 
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: We are right back to the god-of-the-gaps. If you don't understand it, just label it as "god-did-it". Unacceptable.
God does it through 'law', some of which we can grasp and some of which we can't. imo.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:24:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Not nearly akin. Scientists introduce a new hypothesis - "dark matter" - and then test that hypothesis to see if it is correct. These new hypotheses make predictions, after all, about what we should observe if we look in particular places, or at particular phenomena. We check to see if those predictions are correct, and thus either reinforce or trash the hypotheses, as required.
If I recall correctly, alot of hyptheses for dark matter are no longer contenders. As of late the conclusion is that dark matter is some kind of non baryonic matter which interacts with ordinary (baryonic)matter only through the force of gravity.
Since galaxies vary in their rotation properties, about the only thing that scientists can conclude is that dark matter is distributed differently in different galaxies. So it hardly seems it has predictive value, at least as of yet. And of course the explanation of what dark matter is and how it should arise in the first place is another can of worms.
The thing with the dark matter hypthesis is that it relates to a very simple and defineable thing like the rotational properties of galaxies. We quickly deduce that *something* is responsible for the unconventional rotation of galaxies, and so the dark matter hypothesis is justified. Most scientists have not come to a place where they can say that *something* (other than the known dynamics of nature) is responsible for life, even though there is no explanation for it. Time will tell.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Introducing an undefined "higher law" as an explanation for life predicts nothing at all, and so presents us with no way to test to see if this higher law speculation is correct.
Well perhaps it does have some predictive value. I predict that, regarding life, scientists will not be able to produce a living cell from scratch. Regarding consciousness, scientists will not be able to produce a sentient machine. (Sorry Data) |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:53:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since galaxies vary in their rotation properties, about the only thing that scientists can conclude is that dark matter is distributed differently in different galaxies. So it hardly seems it has predictive value, at least as of yet. And of course the explanation of what dark matter is and how it should arise in the first place is another can of worms.
Dark matter is a prediction. We observe a behavior and can't account for it when the known variables are added up. We then predict that there is a variable that we are unaware of. Currently, in this context, that variable is called "dark matter". The specific composition of which is as yet unknown.
The attempt to draw a comparison between life and dark matter theory is not such a good idea.
quote:
Most scientists have not come to a place where they can say that *something* (other than the known dynamics of nature) is responsible for life, even though there is no explanation for it.
There isn't? Wow... so much for several fields of biology.
If you are only talking about the specifics of abiogenesis, then you are still wrong. There is a theory, there is tentative evidence, and there is a strong desire to learn more. It is a very young field.
I'm getting the feeling that you won't be happy with any of this stuff unless it has the same instant and complete explanatory power that substituting in your "supermaterial" beings has for you. If you can't be satisfied with "I don't know" as a conditional answer, you are never going to understand science.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:54:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I predict that, regarding life, scientists will not be able to produce a living cell from scratch. Regarding consciousness, scientists will not be able to produce a sentient machine.
I'd wager that you are wrong on both counts, over the long run.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 13:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If I recall correctly, alot of hyptheses for dark matter are no longer contenders. As of late the conclusion is that dark matter is some kind of non baryonic matter which interacts with ordinary (baryonic)matter only through the force of gravity.
Since galaxies vary in their rotation properties, about the only thing that scientists can conclude is that dark matter is distributed differently in different galaxies. So it hardly seems it has predictive value, at least as of yet.
If it didn't have much predictive value, cosmologists and astronomers would have rejected it quickly. That's part of the basic scientific method.quote:
And of course the explanation of what dark matter is and how it should arise in the first place is another can of worms.
This is a confusion of what a scientific theory should do. A theory is only an explanation of the things we can measure. Dark matter, as currently conceived, is only measurable based upon its gravitational interactions. If we find other ways to measure it and its history, then perhaps there will be theories as to dark matter's formation and constitution. But such theories won't necessarily effect the theory we've got now.quote:
The thing with the dark matter hypthesis is that it relates to a very simple and defineable thing like the rotational properties of galaxies. We quickly deduce that *something* is responsible for the unconventional rotation of galaxies, and so the dark matter hypothesis is justified. Most scientists have not come to a place where they can say that *something* (other than the known dynamics of nature) is responsible for life, even though there is no explanation for it. Time will tell.
You're kidding, right? Something is responsible for life, yes. We don't know what, precisely, and may never know, but we do know that something is responsible for it.
Unless you're prepared to claim that "nothing" is responsible for life - not even a "higher law" or "Spirit of the Deity" - I really don't know how you could make such statements.quote:
Well perhaps it does have some predictive value. I predict that, regarding life, scientists will not be able to produce a living cell from scratch. Regarding consciousness, scientists will not be able to produce a sentient machine. (Sorry Data)
Ah, negative predictions. And my theory "predicts" that scientists will never be able to capture a fairy and figure out the properties of its scat.
Given that such negative theories require an infinite amount of time to find out if they are true, they actually have no real predictive power.
Here's what we expect to see from a scientific prediction (you fill in the blanks): "because life is granted by currently-unknown forces, if scientists do an experiment in which they ____________, the results will be _____________." The expectation should be for positive results which make logical and causitive sense in the context of the experiment. After all, for any phenomena, there exist an infinite number of theories which will give negative results, or which don't make sense.
For example, once Einstein theorized that light should be bent by gravity, he offered an experiment in which looking at a star as it passes behind our Sun, we should observe its position change in other than a strictly linear motion. He even offered up some math as to what the oddball measurments should be. That was a prediction (which, after correcting Al's math, turned out to be right). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 20:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: Dark matter is a prediction
If you are saying that we observe phenomena that are unexplainable by current theory and then we make a 'prediction' there is something more to explain it, then I suppose I would agree. I would rather call it a 'hypothesis'.
Pertaining to real predictions, the various types of dark matter theories do have their specific predictive features, but compared to other kinds of theories, DM theory has relatively weak predictive value. (This is because it is very shifty - it is not even close to being definitive yet.) And then there is MOND theory (Modified Newtonians Dynamics) does away with the need for dark matter altogether and instead proposes a modification to the force of gravity at very low accelerations. Apparently this has been more successful in predictions that any dark matter theory so far. It is also more readily falsifiable than dark matter theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: I'm getting the feeling that you won't be happy with any of this stuff unless it has the same instant and complete explanatory power that substituting in your "supermaterial" beings has for you. If you can't be satisfied with "I don't know" as a conditional answer, you are never going to understand science.
Remember, I'm not offering my ideas as scientific theory. And of course, in science itself there are alot of "I don't knows." My ideas however are more religious/metaphysical than scientific. I well understand science and the constructs it is limited to. Reality just may be bigger than those, hmmm?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 20:26:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: You're kidding, right? Something is responsible for life, yes. We don't know what, precisely, and may never know, but we do know that something is responsible for it.
Unless you're prepared to claim that "nothing" is responsible for life - not even a "higher law" or "Spirit of the Deity" - I really don't know how you could make such statements.
I can only guess you missed my drift. Since galaxy rotation is a simple affair, it was easy to deduce there was something fundamentally missing in current theory. Hence the mysterious 'dark matter' is introduced. But cellular life is complex, and it is not so easy to deduce that something is *fundamentally* missing in the current paradigm. Of *course* scientists realize there is *something* not quite in place to explain life, but the thinking is that its hardly anything that would be out of the ballpark of what is currently understood. I say it is out of the ballpark, and you're looking in the ballpark. Good luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Ah, negative predictions. And my theory "predicts" that scientists will never be able to capture a fairy and figure out the properties of its scat.
Yeah, your theory predicts that something that hasn't been observed will never be ultimately explained. My theory has to do with what is observed everyday. It may not (yet) have positive predictive value, but at least is clearly falsifiable.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 21:10:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I can only guess you missed my drift. Since galaxy rotation is a simple affair, it was easy to deduce there was something fundamentally missing in current theory. Hence the mysterious 'dark matter' is introduced. But cellular life is complex, and it is not so easy to deduce that something is *fundamentally* missing in the current paradigm. Of *course* scientists realize there is *something* not quite in place to explain life, but the thinking is that its hardly anything that would be out of the ballpark of what is currently understood. I say it is out of the ballpark, and you're looking in the ballpark. Good luck.
Let's see...
Given that there are quite obvious differences between my cat and a rock, it's easy to deduce that there's something fundamentally missing from biology. In fact, for thousands of years, people have been hypothesizing "animating spirits" of various kinds to explain the difference between life and non-life. Every one of these hypotheses have failed to be established as theories, largely due to the lack of evidence.
How many more of these hypotheses should be examined before biologists decide that the correct explanation might be "in the ballpark," markie?  quote:
Yeah, your theory predicts that something that hasn't been observed will never be ultimately explained. My theory has to do with what is observed everyday.
Really? Someone has observed the "Spirit of the Deity" or what-have-you? Observing life is exactly like observing "incorrect" galactic rotation: all it means is that there exists something that isn't explained by current theories. And in both cases, all that is being observed are the effects of something we can't currently directly observe.
You think that there's some fundamental difference between the two which will prevent understanding of life, but (perhaps) allow understanding of galactic rotation. You claimed one was simple, the other complex. Yet that's all I see, a difference of scale of complexity. And I know of no reason whatsoever to assume that something which is really complex is too complex to be understood.
Where is the dividing line, markie? How complex does something need to be to prevent our ever understanding it?quote:
It may not (yet) have positive predictive value, but at least is clearly falsifiable.
As is mine: all it needs to be falsified is for it to be shown that fairies don't exist, or if they do, that they lack anuses. Or, even better, to show that fairy poop is the source of dark matter.
Your theory is nothing but a denial of current abiogenesis theories. But science isn't strictly Popperian. Viable hypotheses and theories are required to be falsifiable, but not all statements which are falsifiable are viable hypotheses. "I have a brown cat" is falsifiable, but isn't predictive and explains nothing. Falsifiability is not sufficient for an assertion to be a theory, even though it is necessary. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 21:42:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I well understand science and the constructs it is limited to. Reality just may be bigger than those, hmmm?
I don't think you do understand.
If you continue to disregard the requirement of evidence for positive truth values, then there is little point in going round this rock with you further.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 22:01:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Given that there are quite obvious differences between my cat and a rock, it's easy to deduce that there's something fundamentally missing from biology. In fact, for thousands of years, people have been hypothesizing "animating spirits" of various kinds to explain the difference between life and non-life. Every one of these hypotheses have failed to be established as theories, largely due to the lack of evidence.
How many more of these hypotheses should be examined before biologists decide that the correct explanation might be "in the ballpark," markie?
Well what usually happens is that a scientific visionary defines the ballpark boundaries/paradigm and scientists go exploring in that ballpark. Scientists and science isn't capable of looking outside the ballpark, so I certainly don't expect them to. Thus I don't expect any ideas like mine to be afforded the dignity of scientific. I'm just proposing that there is a lot of reality outside the ballpark.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And in both cases, all that is being observed are the effects of something we can't currently directly observe.
???We observe *directly* the phenomenon of life ; life exists ; we don't observe fairies and their feces. (Hey, maybe a fairy *fart* has something to do with dark 'energy'?)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: You think that there's some fundamental difference between the two which will prevent understanding of life, but (perhaps) allow understanding of galactic rotation.
Yes, well summarized.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: You claimed one was simple, the other complex. Yet that's all I see, a difference of scale of complexity. And I know of no reason whatsoever to assume that something which is really complex is too complex to be understood.
Where is the dividing line, markie? How complex does something need to be to prevent our ever understanding it?
You have demonstrated my point by articulating the view that complexity merely has to be unravelled to get to the bottom of a phenomenon. While it is very true that much will be understood by unravelling the complexity of, say, cellular metabolic pathways, this as you know is not the same thing as the property of being 'alive'. But the complexity lures one into thinking that the real answer to life is hidden somewhere in the jumble of complexity, or as a result of a critical amount of complexity, when it is not (imo). Galaxy rotation is relatively simple so we are led more quickly to finding questions elsewhere, like proposing something as strange as dark matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your theory is nothing but a denial of current abiogenesis theories. But science isn't strictly Popperian. Viable hypotheses and theories are required to be falsifiable, but not all statements which are falsifiable are viable hypotheses. "I have a brown cat" is falsifiable, but isn't predictive and explains nothing. Falsifiability is not sufficient for an assertion to be a theory, even though it is necessary.
Point taken. And for that very reason I don't consider my theory to be a scientific theory.
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 02:12:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well what usually happens is that a scientific visionary defines the ballpark boundaries/paradigm and scientists go exploring in that ballpark. Scientists and science isn't capable of looking outside the ballpark, so I certainly don't expect them to. Thus I don't expect any ideas like mine to be afforded the dignity of scientific. I'm just proposing that there is a lot of reality outside the ballpark.
Bullshit. E.g. There have been many times in physics where physicists thought they were about to know everything to describe what we see then realise they are wrong. Perhaps the most popular example is the 'expansion' from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. If we are incapable of looking outside the 'ballpark', we'd never have figured it out. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 02:25:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Scientists and science isn't capable of looking outside the ballpark, so I certainly don't expect them to.
..... /sigh
And I thought Storm was stubborn about refusing to let go of nonsenseical claims after repeatededly being shown they are false.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
